I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

1/17/2011 @ 9:08PM329,144 views

So much for the claim that “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty….”

As for Congress’ understanding of the limits of the Constitution at the time the Act was passed, it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson was the President of the Senate during the 5th Congress while Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was the Speaker of the House.

While I’m sure a number of readers are scratching their heads in the effort to find the distinction between the circumstances of 1798 and today, I think you’ll find it difficult.

Yes, the law at that time required only merchant sailors to purchase health care coverage. Thus, one could argue that nobody was forcing anyone to become a merchant sailor and, therefore, they were not required to purchase health care coverage unless they chose to pursue a career at sea.

However, this is no different than what we are looking at today.

Each of us has the option to turn down employment that would require us to purchase private health insurance under the health care reform law.

Would that be practical? Of course not – just as it would have been impractical for a man seeking employment as a merchant sailor in 1798 to turn down a job on a ship because he would be required by law to purchase health care coverage.

What’s more, a constitutional challenge to the legality of mandated health care cannot exist based on the number of people who are required to purchase the coverage – it must necessarily be based on whether any American can be so required.

Clearly, the nation’s founders serving in the 5th Congress, and there were many of them, believed that mandated health insurance coverage was permitted within the limits established by our Constitution.

The moral to the story is that the political right-wing has to stop pretending they have the blessings of the Founding Fathers as their excuse to oppose whatever this president has to offer.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I always learn so much from your writing on health care. You, Sir, are a voice that needs to be heard more widely as part of the discourse on health reform. I hope you will step up to the plate. Given your apt articulation of the issues at hand, I think you could be as influential as Wendell Potter in moving this country towards real universal coverage.

Krugman’s blog piece on ACA today was very interesting. Diagram shows that majority of Americans are already receiving government health care – whether Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA or TriCare. Government has already taken over health care and the sky has not fallen.

If I were a middle class “Tea Partier,” I would be upset not about the prospect of single payer, but about the fact that under the current health care reform, it is the lower middle class and middle class who will be forced — in concert with the government spending lots of tax dollars through the subsidies — to basically pay for putting private insurance on “life support” for the next few decades. All ACA seems to do is force the middle class to support a kind “niche,” “boutique” market for private health insurance.

As usual “Left-wing Logic” applies only to what the left wishes to point out, and blatantly ignores everything which contradicts its opinion.

If we are to take this lame analogy to heart, then we would have to also take to heart certain aspects conveniently excluded by the author.

“An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”.

If one were to contend as fact that this law affected all sailors, they would be wrong. Its wording was quite specific, and only affected sailors employed by US Shippers who dealt with trade arriving from foreign Ports; it did not encompass all sailors. Nor does it require that such garnishments be required of sailors that were US citizens only.

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.”

The law also states that ALL merchants who entered US Ports from foreign Ports would be required to abide by this law; none were to be excluded by unethical back room deals. It does require all of the employers to monetarily assume the burden of this expense. There is no threat of penalty set forth for sailors to comply, which is understandable due to the fact that the law does not “Require” that such payments must be paid by the sailors. It merely states that the shippers “May” deduct such expenses from the sailors wages to cover that EXPENSE.

To state this was the first income tax is not only absurd but ludicrous, unless the author contends that employers who deduct from their employees pay items required as a term of employment such as meals, uniforms etc. is somehow a form of income tax levied by the government to compensate the employer for such expenses. The simple fact is the government allows employers to collect for such EXPENSES, it does not require by law that the employers must deduct such expenses, nor does it require by law that employees must pay such expenses, and it most assuredly does not threaten the employees with civil or criminal penalties for refusal.

However, the most glaring of the convenient oversights arises from the authors’ inability to comprehend the grounds for opposing Obama Care as Unconstitutional. This law only exposes that the grounds are well founded.

The opposition is that the Federal government cannot constitutionally force American citizens to purchase services from “PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS”. The monies collected in regards to the Act in question were not required to be paid to a Private institution; they were required to be paid to agents of the Federal government.

Unless Obama Care intends to take over the health insurance industry, and intends to build Federal hospitals, it cannot constitutionally force American Citizens to purchase services from private institutions.

Another factor that the author conveniently chooses to exclude, is the matter of the federal governments jurisdiction over matters pertaining to maritime law, including ports. That authority is specifically limited to this area only.

The other issues that are avoided in this comparison would be the simplicity found in the seaman’s act, which was specific as to a particular area of federal jurisdiction, where Obama Care is all over the board, with nearly 100 non-health care related items included.

There is absolutely nothing concerning this act that forced any individual citizen to purchase health-care, and in no way required that such monies must be deducted for payment to a private institution. This is an irrefutable fact.

The founders clearly show by this Act, that the law they applied was with-in the constitutional jurisdiction of the government.

They clearly did not seek to extend such authority to areas such as Manufacturing, and farming, which produced the same potential for physical harm. By not doing so, it is just as feasible to state the reason to be, “they knew they did not have the Constitutional authority to do so”.

The attempt to cite something as lame as the “Seaman’s Act” as a precedent to claim that the founders would have supported such a “Totalitarian Atrocity as Obama Care”, serves more as a precedent to show just how disturbed the “Liberal Nazis” mental cases have become.

No matter how many lame brain attempts the Liberal Nazis attempt to cite, nothing can refute the fact that the overwhelming majority of true Americans, oppose this dictatorial law. A law that was enacted by a means, which clearly denied the vast majority of Americans their protected right to Representation by blocking our representatives from reading or debating the law. Anyone who would dare attempt to state that the founders would support such actions, is in need of serious medication.

I don’t think that it’s worthwhile to say that the people who have different ideas on how to help this country are Nazis (and that goes for both the left and the right). It really undermines the entire argument because it clearly indicates that a) they aren’t treating people with different opinions like human beings b) that they are convinced that the opposition has the worst interests of the country in mind and c) that they have no problem downplaying the absolute horror of the Nazis. All it does is demonize people which allows us to ascribe the worst motives to them. That’s one of the real problems we are facing right now – we’ve somehow lost the idea that there is such a thing as the ‘loyal opposition’. That people can have different ideas and still have the best interests of the country in mind.

For example, I’m sure you don’t think that the health care system as it exists now, is sustainable, equitable, or efficient. However, instead of listening to the opposition and calmly analyzing the proposal it is dismissed out of hand in it’s entirety. Even worse, no viable alternative is put forward – reforming tort law isn’t going to fix things (it’s not a bad idea but it won’t fix any of the fundamental problems). That’s true on both sides though – both the left and right are so distrustful of each other that they refuse to lend any credence to the ideas of the other. Rejecting them has become a reflexive action. Since we elect our own leader our politicians reflect (or, more accurate, distill and exaggerate) that mode of thinking and the political process breaks down. Like the health care system, that is also unsustainable and is detrimental to the long term health of this country.

So I have to ask, if not beg, you to take a look at the health care act and ask yourself if there are any parts of it you find acceptable. If so what are they and what would you do to help remedy the problem that we are faced with. I’m sincerely interested in your response and hope that you take this comment in the respectful way in which it was intended.

At last! I have been waiting for someone to point out that the ACA mandates payment to private insurance companies under the force of federal law. This is the core issue for me. If we can be forced, by federal law, to buy products from private companies, there is no end to that slippery slope. I hope that, if the US Supreme Court strikes the individual mandate as unconstitutional, it will focus on that issue.

The repeated refrain that states may require car insurance is not comparable. The Tenth Amendment provides: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unlimited federal power is an anathema to liberty. The ACA requires the purchase of a private product.

“Unless Obama Care intends to take over the health insurance industry, and intends to build Federal hospitals, it cannot constitutionally force American Citizens to purchase services from private institutions.”

At last! I have been waiting for someone to point out that the ACA mandates payment to private insurance companies under the force of federal law. This is the core issue for me. If we can be forced, by federal law, to buy products from private companies, there is no end to that slippery slope. I hope that, if the US Supreme Court strikes the individual mandate as unconstitutional, it will focus on that issue.

The repeated refrain that states may require car insurance is not comparable. The Tenth Amendment provides: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unlimited federal power is an anathema to liberty. The ACA requires the purchase of a private product.

But, you might have left well enough alone. The hostile attack on so-called “Liberal Nazis” as mental cases and being in serious need of medication impeaches your own sound reasoning. We need to collaborate on the interpretation of our rights and responsibilities under state and federal law. The right/left paradigm is destructive to that possible collaboration.

Its sad how the media and pretty much all Lefties make every effort to distort facts to make their views or positions sound valid. ESPECIALLY when they are supposed to be seekers of the truth and unbiased.

Thanks Vicaap for shinning the light on the darkness that prevails to confuse the general public far too often!

You know, when I read the first part of your comment, I thought this might be an interesting debate.

And then I read the remainder.

I’ll dispose of your comment quickly in just a moment. But first, a caution – we don’t do Nazi talk here. As someone who lost relatives in Nazi death camps, I can tell you that this is something I have zero tolerance for and, as a result, you most certainly will not be tolerated if this is the best you’ve got.

Now, you write-

“If one were to contend as fact that this law affected all sailors, they would be wrong. Its wording was quite specific, and only affected sailors employed by US Shippers who dealt with trade arriving from foreign Ports; it did not encompass all sailors. Nor does it require that such garnishments be required of sailors that were US citizens only.”

Just for kicks – exactly how many members of the merchant marines do you believe were employed in 1798 that were not involved in shipping coming into US ports from foreign points of departure?

Far more importantly, what in the world does that have to do with the point?

Did Congress mandate that American sailors had to pay for health care coverage-whether they wanted to pay the 1% of their wages or not?

I believe the law which you so generously re-printed for us makes it more than claer that this is precisely what occurred. If this is what happened, guess what? Guess what that is? MANDATED HEALTH COVERAGE.

I also coudn’t help but note that you chose not to deal with the whole point about the US government building and operating the hospitals that cared for these people in exchange for the tax they paid for the privelege -you know, as in a socialized medical system. If I may quote you, I guess this makes you one of those whose ‘“Left-wing Logic” applies only to what the left wishes to point out, and blatantly ignores everything which contradicts its opinion.”

There will be many who will respond to this post with some really good arguments in opposition to the point made just as they do to all of my articles. That’s actually the whole point. Believe it or not, we don’t exist simply to give you an opportunity to spew out your anger for all the world to see as most of us have better things to do and come to blogs such as this to learn something. People who comment on this blog (which include very bright people ranging from those on the left all the way to Tea Party members tend to come here for interesting debate and usually have something of value to contribute.

All you appear to have to offer us is your anger and disgusting dialogue which does little more than waste our time.

I’m leaving your comment up because I think it is important for readers to see the insanity that some (from all sides of the political spectrum by the way) will write from time to time. This makes us better appreciate the intelligent debate that also comes from all ends of the political spectrum.

You are welcome to continue to comment, however if you do so in the same manner, your comments will be taken down.

paid for by a mandatory tax withheld from pay[check] turned over to the government

I realize that you were writing solely about mandated health insurance in 1798, but these sections of one of your grafs struck me as being a good description of the social security tax that we all pay now. Amazing how intelligent our Founding Fathers were; and disheartening to see how far so many congressmen and senators have fallen since then. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow need to see this column so this message gets to as many people as possible.

So Americans who disagree with you are “untrue”? This is perplexing. Enlighten us. This is one of the issues that I find most disconcerting: The inanity of considering one less than American because one disagrees. This alludes to those 3/5 of a man laws which were specific to those of even the slightest percentage of African lineage. Comments so derisive have no appropriate place in public discourse and should be relegated to asylums and other places where disturbed individuals congregate. Is there anything more American than the expression of a dissenting opinion? What is lame about The Seaman’s Act pray tell? Have you not the discernment to understand how significant this piece of legislation was to public health, health care, and insurance to the United States? I suppose the Hill-Burton Act was insignificant in the establishment of hospitals and access to health care within the US. The Triangle Shirtwaist atrocity was meaningless with respect to the treatment of employees in the US in your eyes.

Thanks Rick Ungar , As a seaman for last 40 years , thats 30 years Oil n gas ,I was amazed by that bit of History . The only bit I can tell you was Reagan s era did away with our Health Benefits around 1981 for Seaman operating on US documented Vessels. I have gone to a Foreign Corporation and Shipping were we enjoy better pay , which I can afford private Insurance. I don not mind paying , I would like to see Insurance extended past 70 , all my insurance through US carriers is finished then ,,so what does the our Political Right propose ,, i just wash ashore dead at 70 ,,?? Thanks for you informed Post, sorry you have to deal with Hate Bashing ,,,,,whatever,Good Luck and looking towards your next article, refreshing and enlightening,,Stcuk on the Anchor Eastern Anchorage Singapore,,Capt.Pat

Your logic about the 5th Congress and President Adams knowing the true meaning of the Constitution has one giant flaw:

The act was approved by Congress on July 16, 1798. Just TWO DAYS EARLIER, on July 14, that same Congress approved the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Adams likewise accepted and signed. Jefferson–himself not a drafter of the U.S. Constitution but no slouch in the ConLaw department–denounced it as unconstitutional, and used it against Adams to win the Presidency in 1800.

The myth that this bit of history should dispel is not that the Founders would have agreed with the ersatz Tea Partiers of today, but that they couldn’t even reach agreement among the original Tea Partiers as to what the Constitution meant. We shouldn’t pretend that there is one singular “right” interpretation. The “right” reading of the Constitution is unknowable, so we should instead focus on the best reading of it.